July 14, 2005
PHILLIPS: Well, aside from maybe partisan politics, looking strictly at the law that you drafted, do you see any evidence, according to this law, any evidence of any criminal wrongdoing?SANFORD: No, I think it's pretty clear that what Karl Rove said to Time magazine's Matthew Cooper doesn't even come close to the kind of knowing violation that is required by the act. Really, the act really requires an intent to harm national security, and that certainly can't be said in these circumstances, I think.
PHILLIPS: All right. Now, we've heard a lot about the act, but let's look at it, actually read this portion of Section 421 of the act:
"... knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent, and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States ..."
So in other words, what you're saying, the reason there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing is because Karl Rove didn't do anything wrong because he didn't know that Plame was covert.
SANFORD: That's pretty clear from the notes, the e-mails that Time magazine released to the grand jury that [White House political adviser] Karl Rove said that [former Ambassador Joseph] Wilson's wife -- he didn't even use her name -- but Wilson's wife "apparently works" at the CIA.
It seems to me there's a substantial question whether she qualifies as the kind of covert agent that was envisioned by the act. There are very tight requirements for that.
And there is a substantial doubt whether the agency was taking the kind of affirmative measures to conceal her identity that the act talks about.
As Sanford notes later on, the CIA made no effort to stop the Novak column. So there was obviously no affirmative attempt to keep her identity concealed. That means the law was not broken, because she was not covered.
But then again, what does Sanford know? He just wrote the law
Posted by: Greg at
01:54 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: mcconnell at Thu Jul 14 15:00:52 2005 (o883N)
Posted by: at Fri Jul 15 13:01:11 2005 (aHbua)
And I'm not cocky. I'm simply noting what someone who has great expertise on this law -- the law's author -- doesn't see it applicable in this case.
Of course, since you OBVIOUSLY know more thant the guy who wrote the statute...
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jul 15 16:47:59 2005 (IA36c)
Posted by: at Sat Jul 16 14:47:42 2005 (aHbua)
When faced with a choice between your six whole months of grand jury service and the expertise of the individual who drafted the statute, you prefer to call the guy a yiddish obscenity and tell us that you know better.
I think there might be a place for you on one of those Holiday Inn Express commercials.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jul 16 15:57:42 2005 (jwhgU)
And as for being a "smug arrogant ass", I think you should realize that what you are seeing is not based upon a fair and reasoned reading of my words and my source, but rather upon your own reflection in your computer screen.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jul 16 16:01:12 2005 (jwhgU)
Posted by: mcconnell at Mon Jul 18 04:43:32 2005 (SALCs)
21 queries taking 0.0079 seconds, 36 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.